Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Sunday
Interview With Victoria Toensing, Tim Lynch
Aired February 23, 2003 - 18:46 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: As promised, we're going to take a more in-depth look on a subject that has probably touched most of us at least during the holiday season when we were traveling a lot trying to see family. We are going to focus on your rights.
You go to the airport and first it's someone going over your body with an electronic wand and then you have to take your shoes off all of a sudden, and now security is probably starting to stop you before you even enter the airport.
Well, we've got two special guests to debate the bottom line on your rights, but first CNN's Patty Davis reports on a twist. Some airports are starting to argue with the federal government.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, 35,000 vehicles drive onto airport grounds every day, all now visually inspected or searched by police.
KEN CAPPS, DALLAS/FORT WORTH AIRPORT: We're taking less than ten seconds to do the visual inspections and less than two minutes to do the random searches. We don't want people to be hassled any more than they have to be. We want to keep this thing moving.
DAVIS: Dallas/Fort Worth going the extra mile to check for bombs and other devices that could explode near the terminal. The Transportation Security Administration has ordered random vehicle searches at all 429 commercial airports, that after the terror threat level was raised to orange earlier this month.
ROBERT JOHNSON, TRANSPORTATION SEC. ADMIN.: Our focus is on cutting off at the pass the terrorist threat by putting this layer of security in place for as long as intelligence tells us it needs to be there.
DAVIS: Despite this latest airport hassle, passengers at Reagan National Airport in Washington say they don't mind.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want them to check everybody else's. I know mine's fine but I want everybody else's to be fine too.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you're abiding the law it really doesn't matter. If you're breaking the law then it does.
DAVIS: But some airports, including Seattle/Tacoma International, are refusing to go along for now saying it violates state law. The American Civil Liberties Union says the ordered searches could be abused.
BARRY STEINHARDT, ACLU: It's entirely possible that what will happen at the airports around the country with this vague uninformed policy is it will become the pretext for searching people based on their race or their ethnicity, or for going well beyond anything that's necessary for our security.
DAVIS: The TSA says it believes it is on firm constitutional ground.
(on camera): A spokesman says the agency is simply trying to make sure to plug all the holes at the nation's airports to deny terrorists any more opportunities. Patty Davis CNN, at Reagan National Airport.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LIN: All right, that's the big picture. Again, we've got two special guests to debate this issue. It is all about your rights when you travel, so stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LIN: All right now our debate on your rights as you go to the airport. We're joined by Victoria Toensing. She is a terrorism expert and a former deputy assistant attorney general during the Reagan administration, and also Tim Lynch. He is the director of the Cato Institute's project on criminal justice.
Thanks so much both of you for joining us. Tim, let me start with you. Seattle/Tacoma is actually not complying with the federal mandate for random searches at the airport their argument essentially on legal grounds is that it's a state's rights issue. The federal government doesn't have the right to tell them to conduct these searches.
But really it stems from resources at the airport and complaints by the passengers. Is the federal government violating people's civil rights?
TIM LYNCH, CATO INSTITUTE: I think there are several problems with this program and one of the first problems is that we have a federal agency that is trying to boss local police units around, trying to tell them when to conduct searches, how to conduct searches.
And the problem is that local police agencies are not employees of the federal government, and under our constitutional system local police agencies can not be treated as if they're employees of the FBI, the DEA, or some other federal law enforcement agency. So, this is a basic principle of constitutional law and it's the first major problem with this program.
LIN: Tim, even when there's a larger mandate? Even when there's a larger mandate of public safety under an orange terror threat? LYNCH: Well, normally under many circumstances local police are going to cooperate with the federal law enforcement agencies. It's a matter of voluntary cooperation. But here we have a federal agency, the Transportation Security Agency, that's trying to boss local police units around and a lot of the local police chiefs do not think that this is a wise use of their resources.
When you think about it you have to consider the situation of the local police chiefs. They only have so many officers on their staff and there's only so much that a police officer can accomplish during an eight hour shift.
And a lot of police chiefs do not think it makes any sense to be wasting manpower out at the airport, to have police units searching grandpa, grandma, husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends of passengers who happen to be traveling that day because when they're out spending their hours doing that sort of thing, they can not be following up on real investigative leads in other cases.
LIN: All right, let's -
LYNCH: And that makes us all less safe.
LIN: Let's get Victoria Toensing in here. Victoria what do you think?
VICTORIA TOENSING, FMR. DEP. ASST. ATTY. GEN.: Well, first of all here's what the problem is. Passengers and airlines have been targets of terrorists. We all know that. And, cars and trucks can carry massive bombs. Cars and trucks go through airports all the time, one right after another.
So, the problem is how do you ensure the security of those terminals with so many people coming and going? One way to do it, and it has been proposed, is that you could have people park and be mandated to park a football field away. Another way to do it is to subject people to these random searches.
Now, Tim brings up this issue of a statutory problem. It's not a statutory problem whatsoever. There is a federal law, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which says that the TSA is responsible for security at all the airports.
If there's any kind of local legal problem then these people can be deputized, so this is just not -- this is a no brainer as far as an issue. Constitutionally, the Supreme Court has upheld these kinds of cases for over a quarter of a century.
LIN: Victoria, is it more the issue that there's a legal question if it's a random search and thereby it suggest selection, thereby it suggests discrimination? I mean wouldn't it be illegal if they check every single car coming in?
TOENSING: (Unintelligible). You don't go to the criminal law book to read this law. This is a safety search and that's how the Supreme Court looks at it. So, it isn't a probable cause warrant kind of search. Is this for the public safety and the analysis, the legal analysis is very different.
The Supreme Court asks is there an important government interest? Well, preventing another terrorism attack is such. And then, is the search being carried out in such a way that it doesn't overly intrude on the people and it carries out that interest? And then, Carol, stands your specific question is it really being carried out in a neutral, non-discriminatory way?
So, if you take every fourth car, for example, that's not discriminatory. That is called a random search and that's the way it would have to be carried out. You heard the people at the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport say hey it's taken two minutes. That's what we do, you know, we're getting them through here in two minutes.
LIN: And, Tim, don't they have the choice? I mean if they don't want to go through the search they can just turn around. They can go back.
LYNCH: Well, that's another one of the problems that I think the police chiefs see with the program. If people have the option of turning around, how effective is this program going to be in catching terrorists? The terrorists who wanted to bomb the airport facility will simply turn around and bomb some other building.
They have so many targets. It's not just a threat against the physical plant of the airport facilities. They can go detonate their car bomb against a hotel or an office complex.
TOENSING: But see Tim is missing -- Tim is missing the whole point. The point is not to catch a terrorist. That's why the Supreme Court will uphold these kinds of searches. The point is to prevent another terrorism attack at the airport. Prevention is the mainstay of this kind of search and that's why it can be done without a warrant.
LYNCH: They're not going to uphold the...
LIN: Tim, Victoria, I wish I had more time. Thank you very much for joining us, Victoria Toensing and Tim Lynch from the Cato Institute. Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired February 23, 2003 - 18:46 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: As promised, we're going to take a more in-depth look on a subject that has probably touched most of us at least during the holiday season when we were traveling a lot trying to see family. We are going to focus on your rights.
You go to the airport and first it's someone going over your body with an electronic wand and then you have to take your shoes off all of a sudden, and now security is probably starting to stop you before you even enter the airport.
Well, we've got two special guests to debate the bottom line on your rights, but first CNN's Patty Davis reports on a twist. Some airports are starting to argue with the federal government.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, 35,000 vehicles drive onto airport grounds every day, all now visually inspected or searched by police.
KEN CAPPS, DALLAS/FORT WORTH AIRPORT: We're taking less than ten seconds to do the visual inspections and less than two minutes to do the random searches. We don't want people to be hassled any more than they have to be. We want to keep this thing moving.
DAVIS: Dallas/Fort Worth going the extra mile to check for bombs and other devices that could explode near the terminal. The Transportation Security Administration has ordered random vehicle searches at all 429 commercial airports, that after the terror threat level was raised to orange earlier this month.
ROBERT JOHNSON, TRANSPORTATION SEC. ADMIN.: Our focus is on cutting off at the pass the terrorist threat by putting this layer of security in place for as long as intelligence tells us it needs to be there.
DAVIS: Despite this latest airport hassle, passengers at Reagan National Airport in Washington say they don't mind.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want them to check everybody else's. I know mine's fine but I want everybody else's to be fine too.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you're abiding the law it really doesn't matter. If you're breaking the law then it does.
DAVIS: But some airports, including Seattle/Tacoma International, are refusing to go along for now saying it violates state law. The American Civil Liberties Union says the ordered searches could be abused.
BARRY STEINHARDT, ACLU: It's entirely possible that what will happen at the airports around the country with this vague uninformed policy is it will become the pretext for searching people based on their race or their ethnicity, or for going well beyond anything that's necessary for our security.
DAVIS: The TSA says it believes it is on firm constitutional ground.
(on camera): A spokesman says the agency is simply trying to make sure to plug all the holes at the nation's airports to deny terrorists any more opportunities. Patty Davis CNN, at Reagan National Airport.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LIN: All right, that's the big picture. Again, we've got two special guests to debate this issue. It is all about your rights when you travel, so stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LIN: All right now our debate on your rights as you go to the airport. We're joined by Victoria Toensing. She is a terrorism expert and a former deputy assistant attorney general during the Reagan administration, and also Tim Lynch. He is the director of the Cato Institute's project on criminal justice.
Thanks so much both of you for joining us. Tim, let me start with you. Seattle/Tacoma is actually not complying with the federal mandate for random searches at the airport their argument essentially on legal grounds is that it's a state's rights issue. The federal government doesn't have the right to tell them to conduct these searches.
But really it stems from resources at the airport and complaints by the passengers. Is the federal government violating people's civil rights?
TIM LYNCH, CATO INSTITUTE: I think there are several problems with this program and one of the first problems is that we have a federal agency that is trying to boss local police units around, trying to tell them when to conduct searches, how to conduct searches.
And the problem is that local police agencies are not employees of the federal government, and under our constitutional system local police agencies can not be treated as if they're employees of the FBI, the DEA, or some other federal law enforcement agency. So, this is a basic principle of constitutional law and it's the first major problem with this program.
LIN: Tim, even when there's a larger mandate? Even when there's a larger mandate of public safety under an orange terror threat? LYNCH: Well, normally under many circumstances local police are going to cooperate with the federal law enforcement agencies. It's a matter of voluntary cooperation. But here we have a federal agency, the Transportation Security Agency, that's trying to boss local police units around and a lot of the local police chiefs do not think that this is a wise use of their resources.
When you think about it you have to consider the situation of the local police chiefs. They only have so many officers on their staff and there's only so much that a police officer can accomplish during an eight hour shift.
And a lot of police chiefs do not think it makes any sense to be wasting manpower out at the airport, to have police units searching grandpa, grandma, husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends of passengers who happen to be traveling that day because when they're out spending their hours doing that sort of thing, they can not be following up on real investigative leads in other cases.
LIN: All right, let's -
LYNCH: And that makes us all less safe.
LIN: Let's get Victoria Toensing in here. Victoria what do you think?
VICTORIA TOENSING, FMR. DEP. ASST. ATTY. GEN.: Well, first of all here's what the problem is. Passengers and airlines have been targets of terrorists. We all know that. And, cars and trucks can carry massive bombs. Cars and trucks go through airports all the time, one right after another.
So, the problem is how do you ensure the security of those terminals with so many people coming and going? One way to do it, and it has been proposed, is that you could have people park and be mandated to park a football field away. Another way to do it is to subject people to these random searches.
Now, Tim brings up this issue of a statutory problem. It's not a statutory problem whatsoever. There is a federal law, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which says that the TSA is responsible for security at all the airports.
If there's any kind of local legal problem then these people can be deputized, so this is just not -- this is a no brainer as far as an issue. Constitutionally, the Supreme Court has upheld these kinds of cases for over a quarter of a century.
LIN: Victoria, is it more the issue that there's a legal question if it's a random search and thereby it suggest selection, thereby it suggests discrimination? I mean wouldn't it be illegal if they check every single car coming in?
TOENSING: (Unintelligible). You don't go to the criminal law book to read this law. This is a safety search and that's how the Supreme Court looks at it. So, it isn't a probable cause warrant kind of search. Is this for the public safety and the analysis, the legal analysis is very different.
The Supreme Court asks is there an important government interest? Well, preventing another terrorism attack is such. And then, is the search being carried out in such a way that it doesn't overly intrude on the people and it carries out that interest? And then, Carol, stands your specific question is it really being carried out in a neutral, non-discriminatory way?
So, if you take every fourth car, for example, that's not discriminatory. That is called a random search and that's the way it would have to be carried out. You heard the people at the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport say hey it's taken two minutes. That's what we do, you know, we're getting them through here in two minutes.
LIN: And, Tim, don't they have the choice? I mean if they don't want to go through the search they can just turn around. They can go back.
LYNCH: Well, that's another one of the problems that I think the police chiefs see with the program. If people have the option of turning around, how effective is this program going to be in catching terrorists? The terrorists who wanted to bomb the airport facility will simply turn around and bomb some other building.
They have so many targets. It's not just a threat against the physical plant of the airport facilities. They can go detonate their car bomb against a hotel or an office complex.
TOENSING: But see Tim is missing -- Tim is missing the whole point. The point is not to catch a terrorist. That's why the Supreme Court will uphold these kinds of searches. The point is to prevent another terrorism attack at the airport. Prevention is the mainstay of this kind of search and that's why it can be done without a warrant.
LYNCH: They're not going to uphold the...
LIN: Tim, Victoria, I wish I had more time. Thank you very much for joining us, Victoria Toensing and Tim Lynch from the Cato Institute. Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
